When London North Eastern Railway (LNER) spent £58,000 painting one of its trains with a rainbow-themed Pride livery, the cost of the rebranding was revealed only after a passenger, Carol Fossick, sent a freedom of information (FoI) request to the company.
Ms Fossick then sent some follow-up questions. But instead of answering them, a senior manager wrote back calling her “vexatious” – and accusing her of ‘transphobia’ after trawling through her social media posts.
Ms Fossick responded: “It just seems to be so removed from what I’m asking you to do, which is ‘help me understand how you do your livery’. It’s nowhere near a vexatious sort of request, just to ask once and to use your right to ask to follow up on that.”
As a state-owned body, LNER is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, meaning it has a duty to respond to requests from members of the public, but vexatious requests can be ignored.
Campaigners have condemned the company – which runs most of the services on the East Coast Main Line – for its treatment of Ms Fossick and accused it of saying she was effectively “blaspheming against the rainbow”.
Maya Forstater, chief executive of the charity Sex Matters, said: “LNER’s refusal to respond to an FoI request on the basis that the requester had expressed views that challenge gender ideology was disgraceful and discriminatory.
“It’s appalling to see one of the UK’s largest transport companies losing touch with reality to the extent that it sees a focus on ‘binary sex divisions’ and criticism of its expensively clad Pride train as ‘vexatious’.
“This attempt at thought-policing passengers for blaspheming against the rainbow suggests a corporate culture that is more akin to a medieval church than a modern business.
“The fact that LNER even felt entitled to refuse to respond to an FoI [request] on that basis suggests that staff and managers within the business must have accepted a stultifying culture of fear and obedience.”
Although the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) ruled in Ms Fossick’s favour after she challenged LNER’s refusal to answer her, it is understood that the information she asked for has still not been disclosed.
In a ruling published earlier this year, the ICO said: “Where there is no direct threat to its own staff, a public authority cannot remove a person’s right to seek recorded information simply because it does not like some of the opinions they may publish online.”
Among Ms Fossick’s follow-up questions were requests for “information about LNER’s diversity initiatives, including the demographics of their staff, and the selection process for future designs”, as well as the composition of the panel that decided how to rebrand the Pride train.
By way of reply, the senior manager told her: “Your social media posts have demonstrated views that indicate a bias against transgender individuals. Given the content of your recent tweets, we believe continuing to engage with your request could lead to harmful discourse and cause distress to our transgender employees and the people that the Pride train represents.
“The repeated focus on these specific topics, coupled with the use of transphobic language and alignment with anti-trans figures, suggests a potential motive beyond simply seeking information.”
When the Pride-themed Azuma train was unveiled last June, bosses said it “celebrates LNER’s support of Pride activities on the LNER route as well as a long-term commitment to diversity, equality and inclusion initiatives”.
According to managing director David Horne: “At LNER, we truly focus on creating an inclusive workplace where our people feel able to be themselves.”
It’s worth reading the full story here.
